The argument for industry-specific biases has some merit, though.
For instance, C++ is nearly universally used in the game development industry, which is largely centered in the US, Japan, Europe, and various other relatively wealthy countries/regions. C++ is not used only because of historical reasons (although it's partly that, of course). It also has to do with the qualities of the language itself. Game developers require a language with a balance of performance, abstraction / modeling, general ubiquity, and portability. To date, there's *still* no other language that meets all these criteria as well. While there's no denying the influence of legacy's influence on future development, I think it's also inaccurate to depict this as "being stuck with C/C++".
It's always surprising to me how many people seem to fail to appreciate the fact that different languages have fundamentally different qualities beyond just their syntax, or that the qualities *they* happen to value in a language may not be universally important across all domains. This is the reason that all those articles talking about which programming language is "best" or "most popular" are completely worthless. It's only of use when asking "what is the best language for solving this particular problem, given these specific conditions", and even then, there will still be some subjective opinion thrown into the mix.
So, kudos to the article for at least providing us with a bit more depth than a simple popularity list of languages.
Please don't make statements about "most [anything]" without linking to statistical survey evidence to support your statements.
It's both hilarious and telling that you make this demand of me even though everything I stated can be found in the Wikipedia article under Conservationism in the United States, the precepts of which are broadly acknowledged without "statistical survey evidence". Yet you completely ignore the GP who made absurd claims about how "right-wingers" (note the lack of qualifiers, which implies all right wingers) would somehow find Totalitarian/Communist China some sort of utopia, a completely absurd and indefensible claim. Of the major tech corporations doing business there like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, you can't exactly classify their CEOs as "right-wingers".
I'm even willing to back-pedal a bit from my claim about "most anything", because you're technically correct, which is the best type of "correct" for pedantic arguments. So instead, I'll simply state that these are general principles espoused by the Conservative political movement in US politics, which is an indisputable fact. Whether that is represented by "right-wingers" as indicated in the GP's post, I'll leave open to debate, but that's a pretty common correlation to make.
I think perhaps there's a different explanation. Nintendo is all about keeping hardware profitable, and they do this not only by using low-to-mid range component specs, but perhaps also by not over-investing in production capabilities. If you built production to meet initial peak demand, you'd probably waste a lot of capital building capacity you don't need later in the product life-cycle, as demand slows down and stabilizes.
I fail to see the logic in any company intentionally neglecting to supply expected demand for reasons other than a lack of capacity. It's the same argument that claims people or businesses only donate because of charitable tax-deductions or write-offs. The failure of that argument is that whatever savings are achieved via the tax writeoffs are far less than the value of what you donated to the charities. It's not really a money-making proposition - only an incentive. I think the same applies here. Whatever Nintendo theoretically gains via shortages are probably more than lost due to lack of sales. It's not like they're jacking up the prices of their hardware when demand exceeds supply (although plenty of scalpers do).
If anything, I guess you could argue that Nintendo is keeping production capacity low to protect their long term profits at the expense of their customers' convenience, forcing them to wait longer for the consoles they want.
Except most right-wingers espouse a minimalist Federal government, are pro-firearms-rights, anti-abortionists, religious, and generally favor a strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution, with all those pesky individual rights enumerated. Yeah, definitely a right-winger's paradise there.
Authoritarian governments don't really favor the left OR right. They just favor themselves.
But this is X windows from 1994, and the concept of a desktop didn't exist yet. My options were either FVWM (a virtual window manager) or TWM (the tabbed window manager). TWM was straightforward to set up and provided a simple, yet functional, graphical environment.
I'm not sure how those modes differ from a "desktop", but it's clear he's specifically talking about X Windows' implementation. The quote in the summary is taken horribly out of context.
Try going back and actually playing earlier Bethesda games in the series or even the originals. They haven't aged as well as you imagine they have. They're awesome for about 10-20 minutes as you experience a rush of nostalgia, and then you realize they actually pretty much suck by today's standards.
I've learned not to replay any old games for the sake of preserving my rose-tinted memories from my childhood and early adult life. It's much more satisfying to buy the newer remakes, and then just complain about how they aren't actually as good as the originals.
I'm not a software engineer, just the old fashioned brick and mortar kind (the ones who build physical systems for the real world that people depend on for life). But this was required reading when I started my job.
Brilliant read, thanks. I loved reading the part about how errors that slip past are meticulously analyzed. When a bug is found and fixed, the entire process is looked at to discover *why* the bug slipped past in the first place.
This is something I instinctively do as a developer, but have never really heard formalized. When I see a mistake that was made, I like to take a step back and ask "was there something I could have done to prevent that mistake from occurring in the first place? What part of the process can be tweaked for fixed to guarantee it doesn't happen in the future?" Essentially, turn each bug into a positive feedback loop for making your software better.
Also, as a bonus, I think we just figured out how to get women back in the tech industry:
Otherwise, the hour-long meeting is sober and revealing, a brief window on the culture. For one thing, 12 of the 22 people in the room are women, many of them senior managers or senior technical staff. The on-board shuttle group, with its stability and professionalism, seems particularly appealing to women programmers.
No competent engineer, new or old, has ever uttered those words or advocated what they represent. Such a motto only works when you're involved in shit that doesn't really matter. In other words, it's perfect for Facebook, or a small Google team working on a new project that will be abandoned as soon as it's acquired a few loyal users, or a Silicon Valley startup no one's heard of writing an app that no one cares about.
I have a Synology NAS that both acts as a central file server, and backs up my local computers' important files - various Windows, Mac, and Linux boxes on my local network. Synology has a built-in app that makes remote backups to S3 or Glacier servers.
Because I'm mostly only backup up source code, documents, and my videogame development game assets, the overall backup is pretty minimal. And because you only pay for what you use, that means I'm literally only paying pennies per month for online backup. I never even bothered with Glacier because S3 is so cheap for me, but if you have a lot of data, Glacier is definitely preferred for backups.
It just required a bit of initial setup - certainly nothing as automated as Carbonite, but far less expensive per month. But once it's set up, it's literally been working for years with zero intervention on my part. I just poke my head into my S3 buckets once in a while to make sure everything is there as intended.
I learned how to program in AppleBASIC when I was in sixth or seventh grade - long before I knew anything of formal logic or algebra. It was the introduction to programming that *taught* me those concepts. In fact, I distinctly remember that geometry and linear algebra made no sense to me until I realized I could apply them to computer graphics or robotics. Once I had that as a mental model, the math became much easier for me.
Most programmers tend to be good at math, and many have CompSci or EE degrees, and thus assume math has to be a foundation for programming. As a programmer who is terrible at math, I can assure you it doesn't necessarily have to work that way.
"Hey, why am I on this mailing list? Remove me please." "Yeah, me too" "Why am I on this thread?" "What mailing this?" "Everyone, stop responding to all" "Autoreply: Mark G is out of the office until next Tuesday" "Lol, you first!" . . . Bedlam!"
Slashdot is becoming the History Channel. Ever since some bright MBA figured out there were more idiots out there who liked reality television than historical documentaries, they started showing those exclusively. Financially, it might have been the correct decision, but it basically kicked out their original core audience who actually liked history shows (go figure).
Slashdot, IMO, is doing the exact same thing. The problem is, there are many more places to get not-for-nerd-news, so I think they'll just bleed off viewers until the site is just more of a shadow than it already is.
It's an issue of perception among the general population. Whether it's spread by misinformation is completely irrelevant. What people actually believe is, and we've provided beautiful ammunition for that. Sorry if that smacks of realpolick rather than ideological purity.
Think of the swastika symbol as an example, which is ironically appropo, given the circumstances. The swastika was a symbol of peace and good fortune for thousands of years before the Nazis appropriated it. Do you think that any amount of effort could transform it back into it's original meaning, at least in western / European countries? There have been a few who have tried, like a company that tried to rebrand it in its original intent. All efforts have been shut down due to public pressure. Even the Japanese government, in preparation for the upcoming Olympics, has decreed that swastikas shouldn't appear on maps printed for the benefit of tourists (they typically depict Buddhist temples, I believe). They recognize the reality of our entrenched perception of that symbol as a mark of hatred, bigotry, and evil.
To me, it's a matter of choosing your battles appropriately and wisely. After the past few days, I think the battle of AltRight's public perception has seen a tipping point, and I'm just not sure there's any coming back from it. The "truth", as you claim, is fine and good, but the point of politics is to effect change. You won't do that if the majority of the country believes that AltRight is associated with the white supremacist movement, as you won't get them to listen beyond their initial pre-conceptions. Conservatives have a hard enough time courting minorities to our side without an infusing of KKK members.
The movement doesn't have to die - at least the non-racist parts of it. But I think it's probably ripe for a re-branding. I just don't believe the "AltRight" brand is worth as much as it appears to be costing us.
I guess I've never seen that the benefits outweighed the potential risks. E-mail security is absolutely vital to securing your complete online identity. Why someone would entrust that to a third-party is beyond me. If there's someone I want to get in contact with, I can generally do so without potentially compromising my email security.
No offense, as the "simpleton" crack was probably not appropriate. Different people have different priorities, I guess.
A problem for the AltRight movement is that it's been infiltrated by actual Neo-Nazis. I think it's similar to the problem GamerGate had, in which their message got mixed in with sexist and harassing behavior of women who posted their feminist-slanted treaties on videogames and culture. Those treaties were, in my opinion, at best pondered as an interesting discussion point, and at worst simply ignored. Whatever sort of "ethics in journalism" message GamerGate had was far overshadowed by those who used the GG moniker to commit sexist acts.
The left *tried* to poison the image of the Tea Party movement, but only partially succeeded, because the movement was more about tax reform than overly ideological (hence, the name), and most of the members were reasonably well behaved. So, "Tea Party" is really only vilified by the left - but then again, so are normal conservatives and Republicans in general, I suppose. But here, we have actual, avowed white supremacists associating with and endorsing the movement. I don't see how anyone can view that movement as anything but fatally poisoned.
BTW, I self-identify as a generally right-leaning, conservative Republican with a sprinkling of liberal or libertarian views on some topics. So, I hope you don't dismiss this as someone who actually disagrees with many of your core concerns. But I'll be damned if I ever get anywhere near the "AltRight" moniker myself.
As a LinkedIn user, I'm actually fine with anyone scraping my data and using it. Whatever information I put on LinkedIn, I did so with the full intention of being available to the public at large. That's the whole point of LinkedIn, at least for me. It's a place to post your public resume + a way of maintaining professional contacts with colleagues. If it were not publicly view-able, I wouldn't have bothered, as I want potential employers to be able to find me.
Obviously, this is very valuable data, but in aggregate, mostly only to salespeople and recruiters. So, when LinkedIn talks about "protecting its users", it's pure nonsense. I certainly understand why they want to retain exclusive access, but it's not for my benefit, naturally.
You'll forgive me if I don't shed any crocodile tears when your company's one and only product - that of managing other people's publicly available data - doesn't remain exclusive to you once you publish it.
P.S. What kind of simpleton would give LinkedIn full access to their email account? They requested my e-mail login credentials at one point. My response? Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, right!
What his memo failed to account for is that many people react to these issues more emotionally than rationally. As such, presenting your arguments in what you believe to be a purely factual manner in this debate is a fool's errand. It's a bit ironic, because he failed to realize the implications of the very facts that he was presenting as a rationale for his conclusions: that this means you can't expect pure rationality to win the argument among those you're trying to sway. As such, pointing all this out in a memo and expecting a reasonable and productive debate on the issues is pretty much impossible.
What he did was the equivalent of a man arguing with his wife or girlfriend that "she was being too emotional." How well do you think this argument ever works in real life? It may very well seem true from the man's perspective, but it doesn't invalidate the reality of the situation, nor of whatever underlying cause was making her upset in the first place.
Read Trump's latest condemnation, which has no equivocation in calling out those groups for their racist ideology.
“Racism is evil,” said Mr. Trump, delivering a statement from the White House at a hastily arranged appearance meant to halt the growing political threat posed by the situation. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Unfortunately, this would have been 100x more effective as his FIRST statement. Now, instead, it just looks like a response to political pressure (from BOTH sides of the isle, incidentally).
Well, that explains it. He can only see a maximum of 32,767 light years away, or years into the future. That's certainly not enough for this topic, given the galactic scales involved.
For the record, I hate the phrase "the science is settled", because it's utter nonsense. Science is never settled - that refutes the nature of the scientific method itself, in which everything is subject to questioning. History is replete with "common scientific knowledge" being not just modified, but occasionally completely overturned. Cosmology is filled with such examples, many of which are in the past century. The discovery of plate tectonics is another example. To think modern science is beyond such reproach is the height of arrogance.
That being said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To date, as far as I'm aware, the common research cited as evidence for the link between vaccinations and autism have been rather thoroughly debunked in the wider scientific and medical communities. In some cases, there were even some very damning conflicts of interest found with the original researchers and the topics of study. The typical defense? "Conspiracy theories", which of course are impossible to disprove.
Childhood diseases and widespread outbreaks were a very real, very tragic part of life not so many generations ago. I think part of the modern anti-vax movement works simply because the past few generations haven't had to deal with the result of NO vaccinations. Moreover, it taps into a common need of people to find something to blame for life's tragedies. No one wants to be told that sometimes, unfortunate things sometimes happen because of factors we simply don't yet understand. So, a convenient boogieman is invented. Powerlines cause cancer. Vaccinations cause autism. And so on...
No, most of us rely on professional scientists to do studies and perform experiments. That's why we have more confidence in the results, rather than listening to theory and speculation from amateurs. It's no different than how we rely on professional engineers to build our bridges and skyscrapers, rather than try to build them ourselves.
That's one part. The second critical part is that "modern" apps (formerly "metro") used to be full screen only, which was ridiculous on PCs. The third was the elimination of the on-by-default screen hotspots, which were a disaster for normal mouse users. I generally don't mind using Windows 10 with those major issues fixed. I still think Metro apps look ridiculous on PCs, but at least they're reasonably functional now.
It's so strange to me how this looked so completely obvious to many of us looking from the outside in: that desktop PCs and touch devices have radically different interface needs, and any attempt to merge them is going to end up being a serious compromise for the PC users, making them unhappy.
I suspect this was largely a fearful reaction by those entrenched in PC tech as they saw mobile OSes eating PC's lunch in terms of general market share. So instead of focusing on making their core users happy, they tried to desperately grab at the emerging mobile market, only to lose their core constituency even faster.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument for industry-specific biases has some merit, though.
For instance, C++ is nearly universally used in the game development industry, which is largely centered in the US, Japan, Europe, and various other relatively wealthy countries/regions. C++ is not used only because of historical reasons (although it's partly that, of course). It also has to do with the qualities of the language itself. Game developers require a language with a balance of performance, abstraction / modeling, general ubiquity, and portability. To date, there's *still* no other language that meets all these criteria as well. While there's no denying the influence of legacy's influence on future development, I think it's also inaccurate to depict this as "being stuck with C/C++".
It's always surprising to me how many people seem to fail to appreciate the fact that different languages have fundamentally different qualities beyond just their syntax, or that the qualities *they* happen to value in a language may not be universally important across all domains. This is the reason that all those articles talking about which programming language is "best" or "most popular" are completely worthless. It's only of use when asking "what is the best language for solving this particular problem, given these specific conditions", and even then, there will still be some subjective opinion thrown into the mix.
So, kudos to the article for at least providing us with a bit more depth than a simple popularity list of languages.
Please don't make statements about "most [anything]" without linking to statistical survey evidence to support your statements.
It's both hilarious and telling that you make this demand of me even though everything I stated can be found in the Wikipedia article under Conservationism in the United States, the precepts of which are broadly acknowledged without "statistical survey evidence". Yet you completely ignore the GP who made absurd claims about how "right-wingers" (note the lack of qualifiers, which implies all right wingers) would somehow find Totalitarian/Communist China some sort of utopia, a completely absurd and indefensible claim. Of the major tech corporations doing business there like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, you can't exactly classify their CEOs as "right-wingers".
I'm even willing to back-pedal a bit from my claim about "most anything", because you're technically correct, which is the best type of "correct" for pedantic arguments. So instead, I'll simply state that these are general principles espoused by the Conservative political movement in US politics, which is an indisputable fact. Whether that is represented by "right-wingers" as indicated in the GP's post, I'll leave open to debate, but that's a pretty common correlation to make.
I think perhaps there's a different explanation. Nintendo is all about keeping hardware profitable, and they do this not only by using low-to-mid range component specs, but perhaps also by not over-investing in production capabilities. If you built production to meet initial peak demand, you'd probably waste a lot of capital building capacity you don't need later in the product life-cycle, as demand slows down and stabilizes.
I fail to see the logic in any company intentionally neglecting to supply expected demand for reasons other than a lack of capacity. It's the same argument that claims people or businesses only donate because of charitable tax-deductions or write-offs. The failure of that argument is that whatever savings are achieved via the tax writeoffs are far less than the value of what you donated to the charities. It's not really a money-making proposition - only an incentive. I think the same applies here. Whatever Nintendo theoretically gains via shortages are probably more than lost due to lack of sales. It's not like they're jacking up the prices of their hardware when demand exceeds supply (although plenty of scalpers do).
If anything, I guess you could argue that Nintendo is keeping production capacity low to protect their long term profits at the expense of their customers' convenience, forcing them to wait longer for the consoles they want.
Except most right-wingers espouse a minimalist Federal government, are pro-firearms-rights, anti-abortionists, religious, and generally favor a strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution, with all those pesky individual rights enumerated. Yeah, definitely a right-winger's paradise there.
Authoritarian governments don't really favor the left OR right. They just favor themselves.
The full quote is this:
But this is X windows from 1994, and the concept of a desktop didn't exist yet. My options were either FVWM (a virtual window manager) or TWM (the tabbed window manager). TWM was straightforward to set up and provided a simple, yet functional, graphical environment.
I'm not sure how those modes differ from a "desktop", but it's clear he's specifically talking about X Windows' implementation. The quote in the summary is taken horribly out of context.
Try going back and actually playing earlier Bethesda games in the series or even the originals. They haven't aged as well as you imagine they have. They're awesome for about 10-20 minutes as you experience a rush of nostalgia, and then you realize they actually pretty much suck by today's standards.
I've learned not to replay any old games for the sake of preserving my rose-tinted memories from my childhood and early adult life. It's much more satisfying to buy the newer remakes, and then just complain about how they aren't actually as good as the originals.
They Write the Right Stuff
I'm not a software engineer, just the old fashioned brick and mortar kind (the ones who build physical systems for the real world that people depend on for life). But this was required reading when I started my job.
Brilliant read, thanks. I loved reading the part about how errors that slip past are meticulously analyzed. When a bug is found and fixed, the entire process is looked at to discover *why* the bug slipped past in the first place.
This is something I instinctively do as a developer, but have never really heard formalized. When I see a mistake that was made, I like to take a step back and ask "was there something I could have done to prevent that mistake from occurring in the first place? What part of the process can be tweaked for fixed to guarantee it doesn't happen in the future?" Essentially, turn each bug into a positive feedback loop for making your software better.
Also, as a bonus, I think we just figured out how to get women back in the tech industry:
Otherwise, the hour-long meeting is sober and revealing, a brief window on the culture. For one thing, 12 of the 22 people in the room are women, many of them senior managers or senior technical staff. The on-board shuttle group, with its stability and professionalism, seems particularly appealing to women programmers.
No competent engineer, new or old, has ever uttered those words or advocated what they represent. Such a motto only works when you're involved in shit that doesn't really matter. In other words, it's perfect for Facebook, or a small Google team working on a new project that will be abandoned as soon as it's acquired a few loyal users, or a Silicon Valley startup no one's heard of writing an app that no one cares about.
I have a Synology NAS that both acts as a central file server, and backs up my local computers' important files - various Windows, Mac, and Linux boxes on my local network. Synology has a built-in app that makes remote backups to S3 or Glacier servers.
Because I'm mostly only backup up source code, documents, and my videogame development game assets, the overall backup is pretty minimal. And because you only pay for what you use, that means I'm literally only paying pennies per month for online backup. I never even bothered with Glacier because S3 is so cheap for me, but if you have a lot of data, Glacier is definitely preferred for backups.
It just required a bit of initial setup - certainly nothing as automated as Carbonite, but far less expensive per month. But once it's set up, it's literally been working for years with zero intervention on my part. I just poke my head into my S3 buckets once in a while to make sure everything is there as intended.
I learned how to program in AppleBASIC when I was in sixth or seventh grade - long before I knew anything of formal logic or algebra. It was the introduction to programming that *taught* me those concepts. In fact, I distinctly remember that geometry and linear algebra made no sense to me until I realized I could apply them to computer graphics or robotics. Once I had that as a mental model, the math became much easier for me.
Most programmers tend to be good at math, and many have CompSci or EE degrees, and thus assume math has to be a foundation for programming. As a programmer who is terrible at math, I can assure you it doesn't necessarily have to work that way.
"Hey, why am I on this mailing list? Remove me please."
"Yeah, me too"
"Why am I on this thread?"
"What mailing this?"
"Everyone, stop responding to all"
"Autoreply: Mark G is out of the office until next Tuesday"
"Lol, you first!"
.
.
.
Bedlam!"
Slashdot is becoming the History Channel. Ever since some bright MBA figured out there were more idiots out there who liked reality television than historical documentaries, they started showing those exclusively. Financially, it might have been the correct decision, but it basically kicked out their original core audience who actually liked history shows (go figure).
Slashdot, IMO, is doing the exact same thing. The problem is, there are many more places to get not-for-nerd-news, so I think they'll just bleed off viewers until the site is just more of a shadow than it already is.
It's an issue of perception among the general population. Whether it's spread by misinformation is completely irrelevant. What people actually believe is, and we've provided beautiful ammunition for that. Sorry if that smacks of realpolick rather than ideological purity.
Think of the swastika symbol as an example, which is ironically appropo, given the circumstances. The swastika was a symbol of peace and good fortune for thousands of years before the Nazis appropriated it. Do you think that any amount of effort could transform it back into it's original meaning, at least in western / European countries? There have been a few who have tried, like a company that tried to rebrand it in its original intent. All efforts have been shut down due to public pressure. Even the Japanese government, in preparation for the upcoming Olympics, has decreed that swastikas shouldn't appear on maps printed for the benefit of tourists (they typically depict Buddhist temples, I believe). They recognize the reality of our entrenched perception of that symbol as a mark of hatred, bigotry, and evil.
To me, it's a matter of choosing your battles appropriately and wisely. After the past few days, I think the battle of AltRight's public perception has seen a tipping point, and I'm just not sure there's any coming back from it. The "truth", as you claim, is fine and good, but the point of politics is to effect change. You won't do that if the majority of the country believes that AltRight is associated with the white supremacist movement, as you won't get them to listen beyond their initial pre-conceptions. Conservatives have a hard enough time courting minorities to our side without an infusing of KKK members.
The movement doesn't have to die - at least the non-racist parts of it. But I think it's probably ripe for a re-branding. I just don't believe the "AltRight" brand is worth as much as it appears to be costing us.
I guess I've never seen that the benefits outweighed the potential risks. E-mail security is absolutely vital to securing your complete online identity. Why someone would entrust that to a third-party is beyond me. If there's someone I want to get in contact with, I can generally do so without potentially compromising my email security.
No offense, as the "simpleton" crack was probably not appropriate. Different people have different priorities, I guess.
A problem for the AltRight movement is that it's been infiltrated by actual Neo-Nazis. I think it's similar to the problem GamerGate had, in which their message got mixed in with sexist and harassing behavior of women who posted their feminist-slanted treaties on videogames and culture. Those treaties were, in my opinion, at best pondered as an interesting discussion point, and at worst simply ignored. Whatever sort of "ethics in journalism" message GamerGate had was far overshadowed by those who used the GG moniker to commit sexist acts.
The left *tried* to poison the image of the Tea Party movement, but only partially succeeded, because the movement was more about tax reform than overly ideological (hence, the name), and most of the members were reasonably well behaved. So, "Tea Party" is really only vilified by the left - but then again, so are normal conservatives and Republicans in general, I suppose. But here, we have actual, avowed white supremacists associating with and endorsing the movement. I don't see how anyone can view that movement as anything but fatally poisoned.
BTW, I self-identify as a generally right-leaning, conservative Republican with a sprinkling of liberal or libertarian views on some topics. So, I hope you don't dismiss this as someone who actually disagrees with many of your core concerns. But I'll be damned if I ever get anywhere near the "AltRight" moniker myself.
As a LinkedIn user, I'm actually fine with anyone scraping my data and using it. Whatever information I put on LinkedIn, I did so with the full intention of being available to the public at large. That's the whole point of LinkedIn, at least for me. It's a place to post your public resume + a way of maintaining professional contacts with colleagues. If it were not publicly view-able, I wouldn't have bothered, as I want potential employers to be able to find me.
Obviously, this is very valuable data, but in aggregate, mostly only to salespeople and recruiters. So, when LinkedIn talks about "protecting its users", it's pure nonsense. I certainly understand why they want to retain exclusive access, but it's not for my benefit, naturally.
You'll forgive me if I don't shed any crocodile tears when your company's one and only product - that of managing other people's publicly available data - doesn't remain exclusive to you once you publish it.
P.S. What kind of simpleton would give LinkedIn full access to their email account? They requested my e-mail login credentials at one point. My response? Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, right!
Break out of the computer simulation?
What his memo failed to account for is that many people react to these issues more emotionally than rationally. As such, presenting your arguments in what you believe to be a purely factual manner in this debate is a fool's errand. It's a bit ironic, because he failed to realize the implications of the very facts that he was presenting as a rationale for his conclusions: that this means you can't expect pure rationality to win the argument among those you're trying to sway. As such, pointing all this out in a memo and expecting a reasonable and productive debate on the issues is pretty much impossible.
What he did was the equivalent of a man arguing with his wife or girlfriend that "she was being too emotional." How well do you think this argument ever works in real life? It may very well seem true from the man's perspective, but it doesn't invalidate the reality of the situation, nor of whatever underlying cause was making her upset in the first place.
Read Trump's latest condemnation, which has no equivocation in calling out those groups for their racist ideology.
“Racism is evil,” said Mr. Trump, delivering a statement from the White House at a hastily arranged appearance meant to halt the growing political threat posed by the situation. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Unfortunately, this would have been 100x more effective as his FIRST statement. Now, instead, it just looks like a response to political pressure (from BOTH sides of the isle, incidentally).
My guess would be because of the detachable screen.
YOU go to Ars or some other "reputable" websith
Already to the dark side, has that one turned.
this guy sounds like a short signed moron.
Well, that explains it. He can only see a maximum of 32,767 light years away, or years into the future. That's certainly not enough for this topic, given the galactic scales involved.
For the record, I hate the phrase "the science is settled", because it's utter nonsense. Science is never settled - that refutes the nature of the scientific method itself, in which everything is subject to questioning. History is replete with "common scientific knowledge" being not just modified, but occasionally completely overturned. Cosmology is filled with such examples, many of which are in the past century. The discovery of plate tectonics is another example. To think modern science is beyond such reproach is the height of arrogance.
That being said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To date, as far as I'm aware, the common research cited as evidence for the link between vaccinations and autism have been rather thoroughly debunked in the wider scientific and medical communities. In some cases, there were even some very damning conflicts of interest found with the original researchers and the topics of study. The typical defense? "Conspiracy theories", which of course are impossible to disprove.
Childhood diseases and widespread outbreaks were a very real, very tragic part of life not so many generations ago. I think part of the modern anti-vax movement works simply because the past few generations haven't had to deal with the result of NO vaccinations. Moreover, it taps into a common need of people to find something to blame for life's tragedies. No one wants to be told that sometimes, unfortunate things sometimes happen because of factors we simply don't yet understand. So, a convenient boogieman is invented. Powerlines cause cancer. Vaccinations cause autism. And so on...
No, most of us rely on professional scientists to do studies and perform experiments. That's why we have more confidence in the results, rather than listening to theory and speculation from amateurs. It's no different than how we rely on professional engineers to build our bridges and skyscrapers, rather than try to build them ourselves.
That's one part. The second critical part is that "modern" apps (formerly "metro") used to be full screen only, which was ridiculous on PCs. The third was the elimination of the on-by-default screen hotspots, which were a disaster for normal mouse users. I generally don't mind using Windows 10 with those major issues fixed. I still think Metro apps look ridiculous on PCs, but at least they're reasonably functional now.
It's so strange to me how this looked so completely obvious to many of us looking from the outside in: that desktop PCs and touch devices have radically different interface needs, and any attempt to merge them is going to end up being a serious compromise for the PC users, making them unhappy.
I suspect this was largely a fearful reaction by those entrenched in PC tech as they saw mobile OSes eating PC's lunch in terms of general market share. So instead of focusing on making their core users happy, they tried to desperately grab at the emerging mobile market, only to lose their core constituency even faster.